Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program on Addressing...

E-learning in Physics

Running head: E-LEARNING INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM

Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program on Addressing

Misconceptions in Projectile Motion

Wee Loo Kang

Email: [email protected]

Year: 2007

National Institute of Education (NIE) an institute of Nanyang Technological University (NTU)

Assignment MM800

Mentored by

Dr. Cheung Wing Sum


&

Dr. Hew Khe Foon


1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

This paper focus is to collect, analyze and provide further understanding on the impact of

transformative e-learning instructional design computer-based lessons do better address

misconceptions from learning by doing, using physics topic projectile motion.

The data collected suggests students do score slightly higher in pre-and-post test analysis of a

concept test paper but the difference is 90% significance. The level of significance difference

depends also on the facilitator’s level of maturity in facilitating e-lessons.

Thus, it is suggested that IT lessons should not be forced upon teachers who are uncomfortable

using IT but be encouraged among teachers who possess the prerequisite to facilitate IT lessons

that make the pedagogy of e-learning work.

Students reflected some level of discomfort in e-lessons with learning by doing due to

insufficient student-to-teacher interaction, their own level of IT literacy and a higher degree of

cognitive processes in learning by doing. It is recommend that time be devoted to e-lessons

which have components of inquiry learning and learning by doing through use of interactive

applets but the success of the e-lessons depends on the pedagogy of learning designed in face to

face classroom teaching and computer based learning environment.

2


Introduction

Although it is somewhat of a cliché that computers are revolutionizing education, it is

still not common in the 21st century to find computer-based interactive curricular materials

(Christian 2000). Adopting these technologies may improve the teaching of physics concepts.

The rapid pace of hardware, operating system development and internet browser standards have

made it difficult for text and software authors to produce computer-rich curricular materials that

were not obsolete shortly after publication. Hence, by developing open source and sharable e-

lessons, we can distribute multimedia-rich curricular materials. Copyrights issues are addressed

by giving full credits to original authors and websites.

There are interactive digital media, such as, java applets that allow users to manipulate

variables to observe changes in the affected variables. There are also websites with extensive

content on physics topics. However, few websites have coherent integration of sound

pedagogical instructional materials, well conceived and is customizable to suit the specific

objectives of other educators.

I am working on integrating effective media and content, using sound instructional design

e-learning principles and learning strategies, to bring interactive e-learning to a Singapore

middle-tier junior college physics education. I have developed a coherent e-lesson on projectile

motion, drawing on readily available resources on the internet and materials like educational

videos, which took much of my personal time to piece together. Whenever possible,

acknowledgements of the source of the materials are hyperlinked throughout my e-lesson, with

most authors, avid contributors of their materials for non commercial purposes. I have received

positive feedback from my physics students in my classes about the mini lesson course material

3


that I have designed. I also did a school sharing about the relative success I had with using sound

learning strategies with technology as partner, to engage the learners.

Problem statement

Traditional classroom teaching without the use of computer simulation tends to be

difficult in addressing misconceptions in projectile motion. Computer based laboratory e-lessons

facilitated by an instructor with sound instructional strategies and ease of use, can meaningfully

enhance and complement the existing Singapore schools physics education.

Rationale

Integration of effective use of information technology (IT) has not moved on with the

zest called by Third Masterplan for ICT in Education (MOE 2008). Some teachers are contented

to teach using chalk and talk, as they have always been able to produced ‘desired results’ from

students’ tests and national examinations. While some teachers lament about the extensive effort

needed to incorporate effective e-lessons, after being swarmed with school duties and unending

amount of administrative work, usually decide not to e-innovate and e-enhance their lessons.

Some teachers may lack the appropriate skill set in computer problem solving and technical

know how, usually needed when conducting an e-lesson. The findings from this research may

potentially draw more educational policy makers and teachers to re-evaluate and promote

effective ways to design learning environments with the infusion of sound e-lesson pedagogy

when appropriate. The focus of the paper is collect, analyze and provide further understanding on

the impact of e-learning instructional design and computer-based lessons, on addressing

misconception from learning by doing, in physics topic projectile motion.

4


Research questions

1. Can an instructor during computer based laboratory lessons, using treatment e-lessons

to facilitate student centered activities, address misconceptions more effectively than typical

classroom, pen and paper lessons?

2. Did the e-lessons encourage students to develop good attitudes and affections towards

learning, as compared to traditional classroom ‘chalk and talk’ settings?

Scope and Objectives

To determine the impact of addressing misconceptions from computer based e-learning

instructional program on physics topic projectile motion in the ‘A’ level syllabus in 13 week

research cycle.

Literature Review

Key definition of concepts

Misconceptions in projectile motion can be defined as common sense belief in students

that are incompatible with established scientific theory of Newtonian mechanics (Hallouna and

Hestenes 1985).

These misconceptions in projectile motion are not arbitrary or trivial misunderstanding

about motion. They are common among students today and were seriously advocated by leading

intellectuals in pre-Newtonian times.

Key characteristics of concepts and misconceptions

Misconceptions and scientific concepts in projectile motion can be roughly characterized

in chronological order.

5

http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~kjt/research/conformed.html


Aristotelian Physics

Aristotelian physics believes that rest state is the "natural state" for all objects, and every

motion has a cause. Aristotle recognized two kinds of cause or force: (1) an inherent force or

tendency of every object to seek its natural place and (2) a contact force (push or pull) exerted by

some external agent (object or medium). The heavier body falls faster (farther) in proportion to

its weight. Aristotle also proposed that in the absence of any force an object comes to rest

immediately (Hallouna and Hestenes 1985). Of course, these Aristotle’s physics are not valid

understandings of projectile motion.

Impetus Physics

Impetus physics refers to "a mover, while moving a body, impresses on it a certain

impetus, a certain power capable of moving this body in the direction in which the mover set it

going, whether upwards, downwards, sideways or in a circle. It is by this impetus that the stone

is moved after the thrower ceases to move it; but because of the resistance of the air and the

gravity of the stone, which inclines it to move in a direction opposite to that towards which the

impetus tends to move it, this impetus is continually weakened. Therefore the movement of the

stone will become continually slower, and at length, the impetus is so diminished or destroyed

that the gravity of the stone prevails over it and moves the stone down towards its natural place."

(Hallouna and Hestenes 1985)

The list of examples given here are not exhaustive.

A fired object initially moves in the direction of firing. Only after some impetus

has to be used up can gravity act and the object fall towards the ground

(McCloskey 1983a).

6


An object that is dropped from a moving carrier does not receive any impetus, and

therefore tends to drop straight down (Millar and Kragh 1994). However, air

resistance and the speed of the carrier might affect the actual direction of motion.

If an object is moving, then there must be a force in the direction of motion (Tao

and Gunstone 1999).

Falling objects possess more gravity than stationary objects, which the latter may

possess none at all (Vosniadou 1994).

Naive Physics

Any other misconceptions that is not compatible with Newtonian Theories of Motion can

be classified as Naive physics (Hecht and Bertamini 2000).

Newtonian Theories of Motion

Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a

straight line unless acted upon by an external force. Newton’s second law states the rate of

change in the momentum of an object is directly proportional to the amount of net force exerted

upon the object and takes place in the direction of the force. Newton's Third Law states that all

forces in nature occur in pairs of forces which are equal in magnitude, opposite in direction and

act on different bodies (Nave 2006). These laws combined with kinematics equation under

constant acceleration, represent the current state of valid model of understanding that explains

the motion of a projectile.

7


Synthesis of previous findings

Projectile motion

The principles of motion and influences on motion have highlighted the key common

sense concepts which are experienced based but inconsistent with Newton’s scientific theory of

motion. The taxonomy of common sense physics about motion proposed in (Hallouna and

Hestenes 1985) has allowed a systematic classification of the misconceptions about projectile

motion that can provide a glimpse of the preconceived pre-Newtonian ideas of motion that some

students may have. This information allow for designing an instructional e-lesson to facilitate the

addressing of misconceptions. A few studies have attempted to change student misconceptions

about projectile motion, and the two highlighted cases (Gunstone, Gray et al. 1992) and (Thijs

1992) are in classroom situations. A common method has been that of cognitive conflict (Behr

and Harel 1990), described by (Liew and Treagust 1995) as a 3 step approach of predict-observe

explain (POE) teaching sequence. In Piagetian terms, the conflict between what was predicted

and what is observed may lead to disequilibrium and the construction of a new cognitive

structure (Tao and Gunstone 1999).

Literature on cognitive conflict suggested that it would be most successful when students

are made acutely aware of their misconceptions, coupled with discussion on common

misconceptions made explicit in teaching & learning process, and followed by reflection on

projectile motion in a variety of familiar contexts (Prescott 2004).

Use of technology in Education

The trend toward life long learning, coupled with demands for more flexibility in when,

how and where learning occurs, is increasingly pressurizing the traditional higher education

8


institutions to change their methods and delivery of instruction. While adopting commercially

available learning platforms may seem a straightforward solution, introducing new technologies

is not sufficient. More conceptually, there is also pressure on higher education to renew and

refresh its vision of teaching and learning in view of the current learning theories (Lenaerts and

Wieme 2004).

Given the progress of technology and internet, some advancement in education has been

made in this area. Many researchers would still agree that not enough research had been done on

the effectiveness of computer-based instructional learning (Titus, Martin et al. 1998), this wait-

and-see approach has been largely adopted, that many thoughtful teachers were unwilling to

invest the time and energy on creation of e-learning. Good educational software and teacher-

support tools, developed with full understanding of principles of learning, have not yet become

the norm (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). The prohibitively expensive software licenses pose a

real problem for educational and research institutions (Greene 2001). It is argued that authors

and publishers are unwilling to develop materials to complement textbook publication, due to the

rapid development of the computer technology (Christian 2001). Though I have come to

understand that there are exemplar of book publisher McGraw-Hill Higher Education working

with authors like (Giambattista, Richardson et al. 2007) to host flash and java interactive that are

pedagogically sound, flavored with learning by doing .

There are researchers that propose systems to capitalize e-learning like using free and

open source software (FOSS) (Sanchez 2005). Under the GNU General Public License (GPL),

software like Open Source Physics Project (OSP) (Christian 2006) called Physlets (Belloni,

Christian et al. 2006) , allowed physics educators and students to use the java scripts and codes

to control the base simulations. Another innovation is Easy Java Simulations (Ejs) (Esquembre

9


2007) which is a modeling program that allowed physics educators and students to create physics

simulations using the java code generator developer environment to create new physics

simulations. I have successfully created a simple harmonic simulation (Wee and Esquembre

2008) by following the tutorials in Ejs download (Christian and Esquembre 2007) and it is a

great modeling program for education because of its flexible and ability to simulate complex

mathematical models. The question of whether to use a simulation as an illustration or to have

students create their own simulations is a pedagogical choice for which good arguments exist on

both sides. I agree there should be a transition from using simulations to creating them as

students progress through the curriculum (Brown 2006) this is also largely dependent on the

individual students’ level of IT competency and motivation to learn deeply.

There are also freely available but non-customizable websites with java simulations or

applets like Physics Illuminations (Greene 2001), Java Applets on Physics by (Fendt 2002),

General Physics Java Applets by (Reddy 2004), Learn Physics using Java by (Ng 2002) and

Physics Applets by (Bothun 2007). These authors usually allow free use their java applets onsite,

or some allow mirror sites to be setup, for educational purposes. The source codes for these

applets may not be freely shared so it will be difficult to change and customize the applets. The

outstanding exception is NTNU Virtual Physics Laboratory by (Hwang 2007) which has a

customizable java simulation capability by sharing of source codes license under Creative

Commons Attribution 2.5 Taiwan. Generally, these websites cover the functionality of the

applets but these learning by doing applets but need the teachers to design suitable pedagogy

activities around the simulation applet, to make the learning more deep and meaningful (Weiman

and Perkins 2005), instead of just manipulating the variables. Some would agree that techno-

centric approach to courseware development (Rieber 2000) has been largely the way teachers

10


selectively use some of these applets, capitalizing on what the applets can do, to redesign the e-

lessons around these applets, which is close to what I did for this e-lesson.

These simulations are very thought provoking and make learning very visual, they are

excellent educational additions, but cannot replace the classical classroom education (Nancheva

and Stoyanov 2005). Many will agree on the validity of integrating technology as partner rather

than technology as the sole medium of instruction with blending approaches in the classroom.

Students do not learn from technology, they learn from thinking and engaging in activity. A

sufficiently rich and engaging learning environment must be created to enable the student to

situate his or her understanding of concepts and principles over against the concept being taught

(Martin, Austen et al. 2001). With the increasing use of the world wide web (WWW) in our

culture, it is likely that students will become very comfortable with web-based tools in education

(Titus, Martin et al. 1998).

Learning Strategies

Evidence points to the fact that students learn less than we intend them to and to bring

about conceptual change requires the introduction of new teaching and learning habits (Lenaerts

and Wieme 2004).

The researchers and teachers have come to know that students frequently find it difficult

to grasp many concepts in physics, often because these concepts are complex or abstract and

cannot be visualized or made concrete, or it is not feasible or possible to demonstrate them in a

practical way in the classroom.

Technology allows for experimentation on phenomena such as free-fall due to gravity,

and many others, to assist students to visualize physical situations that are not possible or safe to

11


explore under traditional classroom conditions without the use of such technology. With

computer-aided assessment, students can receive immediate feedback about their progress (Titus,

Martin et al. 1998). Multimedia-enhanced questions can use motion and sound to illustrate

pertinent information.

Applet simulations model physical phenomena where questions can be asked regarding

the phenomena, leading students to think critically about the problem. On occasions, students

need to collect data from the applet simulations model and perform calculations in order to

answer the questions presented. Otherwise simply viewing the simulation may be enough for

students to understand the problem exercise (Belloni, Christian et al. 2006).

Homework is a tremendous motivator for students, and provides motivation to study

continuously throughout the week rather than procrastinating until homework is due providing

assessment on a frequent basis keeps students more focused on material presented in class.

(Titus, Martin et al. 1998)

Allowing the learner to work independently or collaboratively either in school or at home

is a good way to get students to learn. Out-of-class study time can be utilized to improve student

learning of basic physics concepts (Greene 2001). Doing more requires individualized instruction

and productive out-of-class effort on the part of the student. Depending on the students’ learning

preference, learning in the computer laboratory can take the form of one-to-one with the

computer or in pair-work. All students can benefit from the interactivity and immediacy of a

well-designed computer-aided educational system compared to other traditional learning tools,

such as textbooks. (Greene 2001)

12


Problems when using computer as partner

While integrating Information and Communications Technology (ICT) into the classroom

may increase motivation and interest in the “fun stuff”, a teacher may be faced with increased

reluctance to attend non-computer-based activities. Students would still need the textbook for

doing homework and study at home while some students actually prefer classroom teaching. This

could be due to the pen and paper mode of assessment in national examination and learning is

less demanding on the cognitive processes compared to guided learning by exploring and doing.

Administrative rights to the computer operating system (OS), and ‘slow’ computers due

to host of programs running in the background in schools computer is a self inflicted problem

due perhaps overriding importance to cyber security from Ministry of Education (MOE).

When problems occur, can the teacher remedy the situation quickly? This reminds me

why some teachers are reluctant to use computers because it is simply too late and frustrating to

file a help request to the school Technical Assistant (TA).

The burden of overcoming technical obstacles will hinder the harnessing of ICT as a

teaching and learning aid in the physics classroom, with the focus on how to use the technology

itself rather than on the learning that should be taking place.

It is suggested that teachers go through a pilot testing and prepare for the e-lesson before

assigning students to the e-learning material as technical problems are bound to occur without

testing. (Belloni, Christian et al. 2006)

Knowledge gap in the current literature

Much of the methods and research have been on using classroom setting to challenge the

students to be consistent in their reasoning, and the much reported stubbornness of student

13


intuitive ideas may be due to the cognitive strain in forming different ideas as the students try to

make sense of the questions asked. (Green, MarceL et al. 1998)

Although there has been much reference to the effectiveness of using classroom setting in

mechanics (Arons 1990), detailed explanation or advice on its implementation has not been

readily available.

There are research that indicated dramatic improvement of academic achievement was

found in the learner-centered virtual reality (VR) group, followed by teacher-centered VR group

and lastly teacher-centered group (Kim, Park et al. 2001) on physics concepts wave propagation,

ray optics, relative velocity, electric machines but not on projectile motion.

Research by (Tao and Gunstone 1997) conducted in a naturalistic environment of

fourteen Grade 10 students, to address misconceptions through predict-observe-explain (POE)

tasks using a series of computer simulations program with pen and paper using constructivist

framework for students’ interactions. Their findings examine the core of conceptual change, why

it occurred and why it didn’t for some, due to pre-conceived knowledge etc. There was little

statistical level conclusions based on a larger population of students.

Thus, my research will attempt to focus on statistical significant and conducted in a

Singapore junior college context, with the key thrust of designing e-lesson.

Method

E-Learning Designing Framework for Student Centered E-lesson Instructional Programme

Broadly speaking, my e-learning design framework for the e-lesson is influenced by 7

design principles (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996), e-learning evaluation framework

‘FREEDOM’ (Schank 2002) and student centered design (Jonassen and Land 2000). As for the

14


human computer interface, general design guidelines (Norman 2002) are used subtly in the

creation of the instructional program.

The 9 principles of learning under constructivist theory (Hein 1991) are

epistemologically based however I did not explore this e-lesson design principles in mind, due to

time constraints of the treatment period of only 3 hours of lessons.

Giving the motivation to learn

A good course supplies motivation or builds upon motivation that is there in the first

place (Schank 2002).

Students will not learn anything even from the best course if they cannot see how and

what they will learn apply to them.

Since projectile motion may or may not be inherently motivating to know, I embed the

relevance of knowing projectile motion in context of how it affects sport scientists discovery of

throwing ball games, like in free throws in football, making it motivating to draw personal

motivation from. I aim to use motivation to cause the students’ memories to be permanently

altered.

Encourages Contacts between Students and Instructor

Frequent student-instructor contact in and out of class is an important factor in student

motivation and involvement. The instructor’s concern helps students get through rough times and

keep on working. Knowing a few teachers well, enhances students’ intellectual commitment and

encourages them to think about their own values and plans (Chickering and Ehrmann 1996). The

communication capabilities of the computer must be used to create a feed-back loop between

instructor and student (Christian 2001). I used computer laboratory lessons where the teacher

15


acts as facilitator instead of independent e-learning at home, as a means to promote frequent

contacts between students in their pair work and between students and teacher. The e-lesson aims

to provide useful resources, and provide for joint problem solving and shared learning

environment to augment face-to-face contact in and outside of class meetings.

Develops Reciprocity and Cooperation among Students

Learning is enhanced when it involves pair work or team effort. Good learning, like good

work, is collaborative and social. Working with others often increases involvement in learning.

Sharing one’s ideas and responding to others’ improves thinking and deepens understanding.

The pair work assignment during computer laboratory lesson promotes collaborative

learning and group problem solving. Discussion on the worksheet assignment can dramatically

strengthened communication between students and also provides a sense of achievement of

completion of core concepts and accountability on the students’ part during e-learning.

Use Active Learning Techniques, Learning by Doing with Failure of Expectation

They must discuss about what they are learning, writing reflectively about it, relating it to

past experiences, and applying it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of

themselves. The worksheet aims to allow thinking about and re-accounting concepts and

misconceptions that they have encountered. I have designed simple questions supporting

apprentice-like activities in using the internet to gather information require for solving higher

order questions. The simulation applet requires them to think about what variables are to be

changed while keeping others constant, allowing the students to observe things for themselves..

The failures of expectation (Schank 2002) when using the applet, serves to surprise the student

causes an attempt to revise the knowledge base by seeking explanations. The simulation of a

16


projectile can be visually analyzed by selecting whether it is the displacement, velocity vectors

or acceleration vector that they want to study. The students must decide what data to analyze and

collect and how to most efficiently collect it (Christian 2001). By changing their input variables

in the simulation, this allow instant and real time resulting changes, promoting more thoughtful

analysis and build deeper understanding of the phenomena, encourages exploration and enables

inquiry (Schank 2002). This activity is risk free compared to actually doing it in the classroom

or physics laboratory, and is low cost compared to typical real equipment like data loggers. I

designed the e-lesson to have sufficient online activity as well as pen and paper, practice in doing

(Schank 2002) through the 3 problem solving questions in projectile motion. Having done the

problems allows them to internalize and reflect on how well they did it, and prepare to try again

for slightly different problems.

Gives Prompt Feedback

Through using the worksheet, students get to reflect on what they have learned, what they

still need to know, and how they might assess themselves. Use of immediate feedback in the

form of the multi choice questions aims to also support the person-to-person feedback, during

lesson time. The java applet simulations and the flash lessons on projectile motion also provide

immediate feedback. I have created scaffolds in the form of an screen capture with audio

explanations, demonstrating ways to use the java applet meaningfully and provide initial learning

support to the learner. The learner can choose to use it once or more times, there after do not

need to use it again once the learner is confident to use the applet meaningfully (Bonham 2005).

The use of dynamic graphics, videos on physics phenomena and flash projectile activity with

questions with immediate feedback though the java scripting, aims to provide more personalized

17


feedback to common misconceptions faced by the students as well as incite an emotional

response (Schank 2002) to tied the content through powerful demonstration of videos and

dynamic images.

Practice in Reasoning

The lesson encourages practice in reasoning (Schank 2002) whether classroom or

computer based. The 3 steps involved in solving any problem in projectile are:

1. Assume the origin of coordinate (0, 0) as the point of launch of the projectile

2. Fill in the end condition into the 2 equations of motion under constant acceleration

(which is actually four equations if you think about x and y direction independently)

and

3. Think and decide what you need and how to solve the problem

The reason for step 1 is that the fact that the equation of motion under constant

acceleration has an initial displacement vector of and when equated to , thus

becomes . The e-lesson will

facilitate the reasoning of this relationship. By teaching students projectile motion as a

continuation of vectors learnt earlier in the year promotes practice as well.

Emphasizes Time on Task

Learning to use one’s time well is critical for students, the guide given to them is to read

the real life motivation journal article last, even though it is the first section of the instructional

program. Allocating realistic amounts of time means conducting 3 one hour e-lesson aims to help

students to do effective learning. By making the material available online 24/7, allows students

18


to make better use of time when they are in class can get access to important resources for

learning.

Communicates High Expectations

Expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Through use of

the motivational article on the art of throwing, I aim to demonstrate that this is a significant real-

life problem with conflicting perspectives or paradoxical data sets. These can set powerful

learning challenges that drive students to not only acquire information but sharpen their

cognitive skills of analysis, synthesis, application, and evaluation. There are some open ended

questions to get students to design the own inquiry on the general rule for the same horizontal x-

direction displacement by changing the launch angle of the projectile motion, to challenge the

more able students.

Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning

The design of a self pace e-lesson, encourage on by pair work, aims to recognize the fact

that there are many paths that lead to optimum learning. Different students bring different talents

and styles to the class. Students are given opportunities to show their talents and learn in ways

that work for them, by giving recognition and encouragement. Then they can be pushed to learn

in new ways that do not come so easily. Aided by technologies, students with similar motives

and talents can work in cohort study groups without constraints of time and place.

19


Background where the study was conducted

This study was conducted in Yishun Junior College (Singapore) in the month of February

2007. The students joined the junior college using their Secondary School Preliminary

Examinations results, with a minimum of 20 points in 1 language and 5 relevant subjects (L1R5).

The students offer 9745 H2 Physics syllabus (2007) and some have prerequisite knowledge

about Physics in their ‘O’ level syllabus either Physics 5052 at ‘O’ Level or Science (Physics,

Chemistry) 5152 or Science (Physics, Biology) 5153 with Physics component. Though most of

the students are waiting for the release of their ‘O’ Level results, most respond well to the

lessons, with some exceptions. A total of 6 classes participated in this research through their

normal timetable, pre and post test and treatment were conducted in their natural setting of the

school. There were 3 classes in the experimental group and 3 classes in the control group, each

taken by one instructor. A total of 82 students took the pre and post test, of which 18 are JC1

repeat students and they were excluded in the analysis to focus on students that are not formally

introduced to the physics ideas on projectile motion.

Procedure detail step by step account of what you actually did

I managed to integrate an e-lesson through use of webpage design format (html) using e-

learning designing framework for student centered e-lesson instructional program, which include

1. Videos from The Education Group ‘The Video Encyclopedia of Physics

Demonstrations’(Group 2003-2005),

2. Projectile motion java applet by Walter Fendt (Fendt 2002),

3. Flash interactive lessons from Monterey Institute for Technology and Education, on

Advanced Placement Physics B Courses (Education 2003),

20


4. Flash projectile activity by Adrian Watt, Absorb Physics for A-Level, Crocodile Clips

Ltd (Watt 2004),

5. Some questions and graphics from Tom Henderson from the website The Physics

Classroom (Henderson 1996-2005),

6. Java simulation interactive by on shooting a coconut release by a monkey for the book

College Physics 2nd Edition (Giambattista, Richardson et al. 2007) and

7. PDF document from physicsweb.org on the Physics of throwing: A new angle on

throwing (Linthorne 2006)

Cycling through the Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation (ADDIE)

model of instructional design, I was able to put together a coherent e-lesson aimed at providing a

learning environment for projectile motion in general, as well as addressing most of the

misconceptions most students may have. I also had a Rapid Prototyping Phase (Tripp and

Bichelmeyer 1990) with my H1 Physics students, getting them to learn and experience the e-

lesson first, and collect useful information that will help to refine and debug the e-lesson.

I have prepared a concept test of 24 questions (only 23 are used for mean due to change

in question 2) to be taken in 50 minutes during normal lesson time.

I have conducted a quasi experiment using a self-constructed pre and post test and on a

total of 6 classes taking H2 physics syllabus on the month of February. I used P07 class as beta-

testing on my test questions, refined the test questions and check for coefficient of reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha, average inter-item correlation between questions. I decided to add some

details like drawings to make the questions clear and more visual and thus easier to understand

the questions being asked. The 24 questions are largely the same, except for question 2, which

was changed because most in the pilot got the question correct as ’parabola’ and it doesn’t really

21


test concept, more a recall question. Moreover, a student highlighted to have questions that

chooses ‘not enough information to determine’ as an option, thus, a new question 2 was

designed.

The initial plan was to have data collection from the 2 volunteer instructor classes but I

also conduct on my own classes for statistical reasons. In the end, I include my own classes,

because the 2 instructors’ classes’ students ‘fail’ to complete the pre and pro tests in ‘statistically

significant’ numbers.

To use the recycled data collected on P07, I need to match the answers to five questions

due to a reordering of (question 15 to 19) while question 2 is a different question which will be

removed from the result analysis, thus the findings from the study will remain unbiased with pre

and post test consistency.

General instructions to instructors

The instructors were briefed to keep both the control class and the experimental class

somewhat equal in efforts to address misconceptions in the course of the problem solving

discussions in class. Details of equality in teaching variables in both groups were left to the

instructors. Instructors were briefed not to reveal or discuss the answers to the questions in direct

relationship to the test paper questions. If general questions related to concepts of the test paper

were asked by the students during the lesson time, the instructor can discuss the questions and

provide detail discussions, but not drawing the attention of the students to the test paper.

Control Group

Classroom teaching focus on instruction, and it is argued that it is not necessarily the best

model of teaching (Chee 2004). In the classroom control groups, mainly the tutorial questions

were discussed on. The instructors were briefed to keep both the control class and the

22


experimental class roughly equal in efforts to address misconceptions in the course of the

problem solving discussions in class. Instructor Lim used a more group work learning strategy

in the classroom teaching. She typically led the students in group work, a formalize set of rules

for writing and discussing solutions with shoulder partners and opposite partners, making group

work a norm for her class. Both Instructor Goh and Researcher Wee used a more typical

classroom teaching approach, utilizing the whiteboard or visualizer with projector, the more

‘sage on stage’ approach. Researcher Wee use the projectile java simulation applet (Fendt 2002)

projected on the screen, with P07 during the 1st lesson, as a visualization tool, instead of hand

drawing the path of a projectile motion.

Experimental Group

Preparing the computer laboratory

To ease the administrative load of booking of the computer laboratory by the instructors,

I mass booked the library media resource room, selective time slots to coincident with the classes

involved in computer based learning. The benefit of this preparation allows the instructor to

carry out the intervention for the experimental group with minimum administrative load. I also

test the computers for the appropriate plug-ins like acrobat reader, java and flash, before the

intervention timeframe. I prepared a backup storage program accessible by the school intranet

called the ‘Project Folder’ in case of failure of internet connection. As I conduct e-lessons

occasionally used this room, most of the problems have been ironed out. The school’s student

and teacher computers in my college, at one time, could not play flash 8 movies, accurate as of

23


November 2006, alerted me to convert the future e-lessons with movie clips to be in windows

media player format.

InterventionIn the computer laboratory lesson, the venue is always the library media resource room

with 15 to 20 computers. The students will take some time to turn on the computers, login and go

to the internet address for the e-lesson.

http://www.asknlearn.com/contentpackaging/13903/RS35/projectilewee.htm

Sometimes, the internet can be slow so there is some wait time for the e-lesson to start.

For the first one hour lesson, students usually go through the flash lesson. Instructor will go

round to facilitate the pair of students in their e-learning. The instructor may use the projector to

bring everyone to the same problem in the lesson and demonstrate how to use the program etc.

By the second lesson, the worksheet was implemented, thanks to feedback from Instructor Lim,

and the students now have a pen and paper mode of question based guided learning. By the third

lesson, students continue to explore the lesson and in closing, depending on available time, the

instructor may choose to highlight some of the activity that most students would not be able to

access like watching some of the video. It is assumed that only the experimental group has to

internet address to the e-lesson, and might visit the link after school hours.

Data analysis

I choose to analyze the research data in its completeness, with all 3 instructors, students

who are fresh from their secondary school only, without the repeating JC1 students, who have

taken both pre test and post test, and regardless of pre test score. The rationale for this is with all

3 instructors’ inputs, the number of students is 64, which aims to offer statistically significance

24

http://www.asknlearn.com/contentpackaging/13903/RS35/projectilewee.htm


sample size in the mean score of post test score. Including all the students reflect more the

complex conditions for which the students took the test and did very poorly or exceeding

expectations, instead of filtering the data that is normalized. I also hope to give research

creditability by reporting much as rich details as possible, without sounding incoherent.

The 38 participants in the treatment group (M = 12.5, SD = 4.2) and the 26 participants in

the control group (M = 12.6, SD = 3.9), demonstrated no significance difference in pre test

performance (t [57] = 0.08, p = .94), d = .02. After the 3 one hour lesson intervention, the 38

participants in the treatment group (M = 17.0, SD = 3.2) and the 26 participants in the control

group (M = 16.0, SD = 2.6), still demonstrated no significance difference in post test

performance (t [60] = -1.20, p = .22), d = .32.which is not what hope for, but kind of expected for

reasons like relatively short treatment period, emotional anxiety on upcoming ‘O’ level results,

mindset of students on teacher chalk and talk and lack of relevant experiences of students with

learning by doing e-lessons.

(Posner, Strike et al. 1982) and more recently (Sinatra and Pintrich 2003) , have

emphasized some extents of affective factors in conceptual change. Thus, my Test of Projectile

Motion-Physics Related Attitudes (TOPRA) (did they did they enjoy physics, find physics

interesting, etc). and Affective Outcome Scale (AOS) (helped them better understand physics

principles, they are more confident of their knowledge of physics now etc) aim to make sense of

the extent of the affective domains affecting the test results, especially since the outcome of the

test results shows an insignificant improvement on the post test performance in the treatment

group over the control group.

While I would have “liked” to see a more positive attitudes and affective outcome in the

treatment group, there are many factors that influence a student’s disposition toward a subject,

25


like their secondary school experience with physics, ease of doing well in assessment, the

teachers that teaches physics etc. I, too, may be overly ambitious to expect my e-lessons

materials to have great impact here. (Martin, Austen et al. 2001)

Reliability and Validity

To check for the coefficient of reliability Cronbach’s Alpha, average inter-item

correlation between questions, an analysis was conducted on the test questions. Based on an

initial draft of the test questions, the Cronbach’s Alpha based on the 24 questions is 0.81. I also

did a reliability statistics on Question 3 and 5 which test concept of acceleration is downwards

towards centre of Earth at a magnitude of 9.81 m/s^2 (a y = -g), which Cronbach’s Alpha = 1.0.

Another reliability statistics on Question 4, 11, 12 and 14 which test concept of initial horizontal

velocity is equal to final horizontal velocity due to a constant velocity motion in the horizontal

direction ( u x = v x ), Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.76.

I have prepared a concept test (some original questions, some modified) and my school

teacher Lim, Senior Teacher Wong and Senior Teacher Tai have vetted the concept test paper

and all agreed the questions are relevant to test the concepts on projectile motion. Doctoral

Student Chew in NIE who is a physics researcher has reviewed the test paper. This way, I used

external and internal expert members to check the validation of the test paper on assessing

students misconceptions on projectile motion.

26


Findings

1. Can an instructor during computer based laboratory lessons, using treatment e-lessons

to facilitate student centered activities, address misconceptions more effectively than typical

classroom, pen and paper lessons?

For Research Wee, who is the creator of the e-lesson, his 13 participants in the treatment

group (M = 10.0, SD = 3.4) and the 7 participants in the control group (M = 12.9, SD = 4.1),

demonstrated no significance difference in pre test performance (t [11] = 1.59, p = .14), d = .83.

In the post test, the 13 participants in the treatment group (M = 17.3, SD = 3.3) and the 7

participants in the control group (M = 17.3, SD = 2.6), still demonstrated no significance

difference in post test performance (t [15] = -0.02, p = .99), d = .01. Due to the quasi design of

the researcher due to the natural setting of the school teaching assignment and class formation,

makes it difficult to make the pre test result equal. I would argue that despite no significant

difference in both groups, there is room for discussion of evidence of possible greater

improvement in the post test results by the experimental group due to the e-lesson. Interviews

with the students indicate they found the java interactive applet easier to understand due to the

simulation that shows visually the physics of projectile motion, than teachers’ explanation (C.Y.

Yap June, personal interview, April 12, 2007).

For Instructor Lim, who is a group work classroom teacher, who is somewhat not so

(Information Technology) IT savvy, her 9 participants in the treatment group (M = 12.6, SD =

3.8) and the 9 participants in the control group (M = 14.0, SD = 4.2), demonstrated no

significance difference in pre test performance (t [16] = 0.71, p = .49), d = .35. In the post test,

27


the 9 participants in the treatment group (M = 15.0, SD = 3.8) and the 9 participants in the

control group (M = 15.7, SD = 2.9), still demonstrated no significance difference in post test

performance (t [15] = 0.49, p = .63), d = .24. One perspective on the result is arguable that

Instructor Lim style of facilitation and personal inclination towards use of IT did not bring out

the key aspects of the computer lesson, in the manner like Researcher Wee.

For Instructor Goh, who is somewhat more comfortable using IT in his lesson, his 16

participants in the treatment group (M = 14.4, SD = 4.2) and the 10 participants in the control

group (M = 11.1, SD = 3.4), demonstrated significance difference in pre test performance (t [22]

= -2.23, p = .04), d = .89. In the post test, the 16 participants in the treatment group (M = 17.8,

SD = 2.4) and the 10 participants in the control group (M = 15.4, SD = 2.3), continued to

demonstrate significance difference in post test performance (t [24] =-2.51, p = .02), d = 1.05.

One perspective on the result is arguable that Instructor Goh’s students in class P01 are naturally

higher ability students and the e-lesson did allow some students to continue to score higher in

post test.

2. Did the e-lesson encourage students to develop good attitudes and affections towards

learning, as compared to traditional classroom chalk and talk settings?

For the targeted 64 students, both experimental and control group, rated fairly equal

percentages in terms of test of physics related attitudes (TOPRA). Only differences greater than

15% are reported here. Firstly, it is noted that 63% of the experimental students reported ‘the

work is hard in physics lessons’, compared to 48% in the control group. Secondly, 47% of the

experimental students reported ‘I feel confused during physics lessons’, compared to 31% in the

28


control group. Thirdly, 34% of the experimental students reported ‘The thought of physics

makes me tense’, compared to 04% in the control group. The other 4 questions did not differ by

more than 15%, and I will treat them as equal responses in attitudes towards physics in both

groups.

In my interviews with the majority of the students in my experimental group, they

explained that they found the physics work hard because they need to ‘think’ for themselves.

Secondly, they feel more confused during lessons because they have to ‘figure out the answers

themselves’ (Y.S. Lyn Joanne, personal interview, April 12, 2007). Thirdly, they feel more

tensed during lesson because they are ‘new to the experience of learning with computer’, ‘the

computer lessons make them think more so they feel tensed’ and ‘they have lazy brains’ (C.Y.

Yap June, personal interview, April 12, 2007).

In the affective domain, the survey percentages indicate control (classroom) group are

generally

more confident in their knowledge in physics,

they want to know more about physics,

they are more motivate to do the assigned work,

they want to know more about physics,

they feel physics is an important subject area,

they see how physics can be applied to solve important problems and lastly

they see important connections in physics with other subject areas.

This is puzzling survey data because the survey results are opposite to what I was

expecting.

29


Interviews with majority of the students in my experimental group revealed that they feel

that having a teacher, who is an expert in the subject matter to explain to them, will make them

feel more confident of the physics concepts learnt. One student mentioned, that ‘the computer

can’t talk to her like a human can’ (H.C. Foo, personal interview, April 12, 2007), this is such an

enlightening answer, for the way their feel and lower ratings in the affective domains about the

learning of physics in e-lesson. They also said that they are receivers of knowledge for 10 years

of education in the classroom setting and are used to the classroom teaching (C.Y. Yap June,

personal interview, April 12, 2007).

It is comforting to note that some affective domain survey questions did not indicate

differences of more than 15%. Survey questions like ‘help them to better understand physics

principles’, ‘helped them to remember key ideas by applying them’, ‘made physics concepts less

difficult to grasp’, ‘made physics more physics’, and lastly ‘physics can be used to solve real-

world problems’.

Though the survey indicated that the students did not develop better attitudes and

affection in the learning of physics in the e-lesson for the general population of students, the

results of the survey findings still points to the fact that the ‘e-lesson did help to some extend’

(P.Y. Chia, personal interview, April 12, 2007), to address the misconceptions and learn about

the concepts in projectile motion. This is especially meaningful because the e-lesson did help to

some extend, to attain slightly higher scores in the post test in some cases where the pedagogy of

the e-lesson was effectively experienced.

30


Discussion

Individual Instructor experimental and control group

One perspective on the sole result from Researcher Wee’s groups though did not show

significant difference in both groups. It is plausible that there is improvement in scores in the

post test, indicating a possibility of greater improvement in the post test results by the

experimental group due to the e-lesson, also confirmed through interviews with students. It is

somewhat unexpected that the control group scored marginally higher than my experimental

group in pre test scores, leading to approximately ‘equal’ scores in the post test.

One way to interpret pre and post test scores from Instructor Lim’s 2 groups of students

demonstrated to a certain degree that the instructor’s style of facilitation and personal inclination

towards use of IT may have lead to the ‘failure’ to bring out the key aspects of the computer

lesson, in the manner like Researcher Wee. This led me to ponder on the influence of an

instructor personal teaching and facilitation style and level of comfort in facilitating e-lesson in a

computer laboratory. This will not bring about dramatic changes in addressing misconception, so

hypothesized in my research.

One angle of looking at the sole result from Instructor Goh’s experimental group students

in class P01 is that they are naturally higher ability students, thus results showed continued

significant difference in both pre and post test result. This result can be scrutinized further by

examining the change in the significant level of p=0.04 to p=0.02 and the effect size change from

d=0.89 to d=1.05, in the pre and post test scores respectively. This lends more evidence for the

effectiveness of the e-lesson in addressing misconceptions.

31


Making sense of the data

My interpretation of the difficulty to demonstrate clearly how effective or ineffective the

e-lesson has been is that science of learning is like a continuous spectrum of effectiveness

ranging from highly effective to ineffective. It is not a clear cut binary data of whether they have

learnt deeply or they completely did not learn anything. The students could have learnt about one

aspect of a misconception that they have addressed, example in the case of a student Y. Y. Loh

Victoria , who wrote in her worksheet that the acceleration of earth is m/s2, but fail to

answer correctly in question 15. This could be due to the student’s failure to interpret the

question of ‘just before landing on the ground’ and the student’s conceptual understanding being

tested in a novel way that causes the student to answer wrongly. The idea of novice knowledge

could be also applicable to her situation.

Problems with the data

Another problem in collecting reliable data from the students could also be compounded

by the language skills of the students who may be seeing this kind of questions for the first time,

making it difficult for them to make sense of the conceptual questions asked in the test paper.

Their interpretation of the conceptual questions is also limited to their experiences in the

secondary school education in physics, so that they could be answering the questions based on

their prior understanding of Physics from secondary schools. For example, secondary school

physics syllabus teaching objective of average velocity = total displacement over total time, is

commonly misunderstood by students as velocity = displacement over time, when the valid

meaning of instantaneous velocity = rate of change of displacement with time. Such instances of

32


misunderstanding of physics ideas, might contribute to increasing difficulty in achieving deeper

understanding in projectile motion.

Problems with the treatment short time frame

A treatment time frame of 3 hours is sufficient to experience learning by doing and

learning in classroom engaging in solving tutorial questions. Grappling with the new physics

concepts learnt may take some period of time to internalize into their existing mental schema.

Selective T-test Analysis

I will analyze Instructor Goh and my groups only, to lend more evidence to better

learning in computer based lessons. This is because in my interviews with the students and email

by a student (S.Y. Wong, personal email, February 21, 2007), indicate that the e-lesson did help

her ‘from a totally blur to can understand some parts ‘. The 29 participants in the treatment group

(M = 12.4, SD = 4.4) and the 17 participants in the control group (M = 11.8, SD = 3.7),

demonstrated no significance difference in pre test performance (t [39] = -0.52, p = .61), d = .16.

In the post test, the 29 participants in the treatment group (M = 17.6, SD = 2.8) and the 17

participants in the control group (M = 16.2, SD = 2.5), demonstrated no significance difference

in post test performance (t [44] = -1.68, p = .10), d = 0.52. This result is rather meaningful

looking at the significant level of 90 % for difference in scores and medium effect size in the

post test. This finding to some degree supports previous research (Kim, Park et al. 2001) on

learner centered activities able to allow learners to learn more deeply. Though my e-lesson is less

immersive as their 3-dimensional virtual reality, I would conclude that to make sense of the data,

33


survey, interviews and interaction with the students and the 2 instructors, that the e-lesson is

effective and has potential to help students learn some aspects of the physics concepts.

Analysis of the gain in post test scores

A t-test is not suitable here as low scoring pre test will result in a higher gain. Instead, a

graphical representation of the gains based on their pre test scores compared to their post test

scores is analyzed here. There are some students in the experimental group that register high

gains. The interview with the students pointed out they feel that a slightly higher score in their

post test is due to a combination of factors like effectiveness of e-lesson, their own motivation to

learn and find out through communication with the instructor (P.Y Chia and C.Y. Yap June,

personal interview, April 12, 2007).

Conclusion

An instructor can bring about effective facilitation of computer based laboratory lesson

using my treatment e-lesson scoring up to 90% significant difference in post test. The measure of

addressing misconceptions more effectively than the typical classroom pen and paper lessons

was inferred through the post test scores. There was also a necessary condition for better

facilitation of the pedagogy of the e-lesson, which required the instructor to be comfortable and

mature in embedding e-lessons. The interviews with the students allowed triangulation of the

effectiveness of the e-lesson to bring out some aspects of making the ‘learning of physics more

real life like’, instead of being just a bunch of formula coupled with teacher explanation.

It was also found that the e-lesson did not encouraged students to develop good attitudes

and affective domains about physics through the e-lesson. In fact, most of the students indicate

34


lower survey agreement to a number of the survey questions. This finding is out of sync with

most other related research in this area like (Kim, Park et al. 2001). Great insight was understood

after interviewing the students because it seemed the e-lesson made them work harder and think

for themselves, despite being relatively new to learning in the e-lesson methodology. Actually,

they reflected that the e-lesson is indeed helpful for them to some extend to learn about projectile

motion, through simulations and learning by doing.

As for the affective domains, the interviews with the students reveal meaningful

perspectives from the students. A lack of human touch, the computer cannot talk back to me like

a human being can and 10 years of classroom teaching and learning has made it difficult for

them to like to learn physics in the e-learning way. I am convinced that the key to better learning

is the teacher’s human touch.

Implication

How people learn is the key to sound instructional pedagogy in the learning sciences of

any discipline. Designing an e-learning environment need features that address how people learn.

The e-lesson design framework mentioned in the study can serve as a guide to enhance its

effectiveness, to promote higher levels of deep learning transfers. To succeed and to make a

positive difference, e-learning must be founded upon and driven by a keen sense of pedagogy

and an understanding of how humans learn (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000).

Results from the quasi experiment of typical classroom learning versus facilitated e-

learning on projectile motion did not convincingly give statistical validation, only a 90%

confidence level of difference was recorded on a selected group of students, of which the

researcher’s students are part of the data analyzed. It was probable that misconceptions in

35


projectile motion can be more readily addressed in e-learning platform, provided the learners are

motivated and are expert learners with foundations in physics that allow them to build upon or

restructure their existing mental schema. It is likely that instructors who possess the skills and

confidence (Looi, Hung et al. 2004) as well as are mature in embedding e-learning themselves,

stand a higher chance in successful facilitation of computer based laboratory lesson.

The lack of statistically positive difference in post and pre test results between the

experimental group and the control group, bring to light the importance of teacher centered

teachings, in classroom or computer laboratory. I believe all of us are truly inspired by a mastery

teacher at one point in time of our lives, not entirely learning by doing ourselves all the time, but

by learning from another human being who is a master of delivery and content.

Elliott Masie on the letter “e” in e-learning denote alternatives, like the words experience,

extended, and expanded (Rosenberg 2001), is very enlightening. Thus, the adoption of learning

by doing the e-learning educational arena has to complement existing classroom face to face

learning, not replace it.

The open source and plug and play manner to leverage on the issues of development and

maintenance e-lessons can effectively serve to provide quality online learning at a minimum

costs and time.

This purposeful “vision” for change, and the need to develop pedagogically sound

expanded learning environment, complementing face to face teaching in classroom, brings the

Singapore school education to a higher level of performance by equipping its citizens with the

skills and attitudes to face the challenges in the 21st century.

36


Limitation

A delayed post test, could illuminate my understanding of extend of the impacts of the e-

lessons on the experimental group, currently coupled with normal classroom discussions.

The effectiveness of the e-lesson created can be further improved. The failure of

expectation of the existing applet is still lacking in providing zero gravity exploration, which I

feel is an important aspect of confronting misconceptions in projectile motion. The interactive

physics software is a more powerful and rich environment that can illustrate this physics concept.

The design of the experiment could be improved in a true experiment setup when the

students of certain L1R5 band are given a pre test and based on their scores are paired and

subjected to the different treatments. The teacher will have to conduct lessons to both groups to

negate the instructor effect.

In a future school setup, where students of equal ability are put together in a program

where e-learning is complemented with face to face learning versus a purely traditional

classroom setting, for a longer period of time like the duration of their course. This can address

the effects of students’ culture of learning and attitudes towards learning in the self directed

manner usual in e-learning.

Future Work

These questions can help to chart future work to further this research.

What is the appropriate balance between online and classroom learning?

How should e-learning be used to supplement or complement classroom learning?

(Rosenberg 2001)

How should e-learning and classroom learning components be sequenced to

promote desired learning?

37


How to develop and evaluate more prototypes of e-lessons, demonstrate their

viability, so that local education arena can follow up and exploit these e-lessons?

(Looi, Hung et al. 2004)

Appendix A1: Test Questions during Pilot Phase on P07Name: _______________________ Class: ________ Date: _____________

Concept and Problem Solving Test on Projectile motion

Note: Always assume air resistance is negligible in this test

1. Which of the following is an example of projectile motion?A. a jet lifting off the runway B. an airplane landingC. a bullet being fired from a gun D. a space shuttle orbiting earth

2. What is the path of a projectile?A. a parabola B. a wavy lineC. a hyperbola D. projectiles do not follow a defined path

3. A basketball is thrown horizontally from a height of 3 m above the ground. At the same time, another basketball is released vertically down 3 m above the ground. Which basketball will strike the ground first?A. basketball thrown horizontally B. basketball released verticallyC. they will hit at the same time D. not enough information to determine the answer

4. A boy on roller blades is traveling in a straight line at constant velocity. He projects a tennis ball vertically up. Where will the tennis ball land?A. on the boy B. in front of the boyC. behind the boy D. not enough information to determine

5. Faster horizontal motion causes an object to fall slowerA. true B. falseC. not sure D. not enough information to determine

6. An object of greater mass will fall at a greater rate than an object of lesser mass A. true B. falseC. not sure D. not enough information to determine

7. The range of a projectile isA. the time of flight B. the maximum height reachedC. the horizontal distance traveled D. the angle at which the projectile is fired

8. When hit at 35 m/s at an angle of 300, a golf ball travels 150m. What other angle will result in the same horizontal distance?A. 450 B. 500

C. 600 D. 900

38


9. What angle results in the greatest horizontal distance traveled by a projectile on a horizontal level ground?A. 150 B. 300

C. 450 D. 900

10. A hunter tries to shoot a monkey that drops out of a tree as the arrow is fired. Where should the hunter aim in order to hit the monkey?A. above the monkey B. at the monkeyC. below the monkey D. at the ground

11. The initial horizontal component velocity of a projectile is ______ its final horizontal component velocityA. greater than B. less than C. equal to D. unrelated to

12. After the golf ball has attain a certain horizontal velocity after been hit by a golf club, the horizontal component velocity of the golf ball after leaving contact with the golf club is __________________to its final horizontal component velocityA. greater than B. less than C. equal to D. unrelated to

13. The figure below shows the long jumper just after jumping off at position 1 and just before landing at position 4 (assume the flight of a long jumper to be approximately projectile motion). Which position best depict a position of greatest vertical velocity?

14. The long jumper leaves the ground with an initial velocity of 4.4 m/s at an angle of 37o with the horizontal. What is the magnitude of the initial velocity of the horizontal component?A. 3.5 m/s B. 4.4 m/s C. 2.6 m/s D. 0.0 m/s

39

A. B. C. D.

just after jumping

just before landing

E-learning in Physics 40


15. A projectile is launched at an angle from the level ground.

Which of the following is true of how the speeds of the ball at the tree points compare?A. vp1>vp2>vp3 B. vp3>vp2>vp1

C. vp3>vp1>vp2 D. vp3=vp2=vp1

16. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is NOT constant throughout the flight of the projectile?A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity C. acceleration D. angle at which the projectile is launched

17. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is zero throughout the flight of the projectile?A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity C. horizontal acceleration D. angle at which the projectile is launched

18. In a projectile motion, the _____________ changes direction during the flight of the projectile?A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity C. acceleration D. angle at which the projectile is launched

19. What is the projectile’s acceleration just after it is thrown?A. zero m/s2 B. 4.91 m/s2 downwardsC. 9.81 m/s2 downwards D. 15.0 m/s2 downwards

20. The magnitude of the vertical component of the projectile at the highest point of the motion is always zero.A. true B. falseC. not sure D. not enough information to determine

21. On a horizontal level ground, the angle of impact on the ground of the projectile is _________ the angle of projection of the projectile. A. greater than B. less than C. equal to D. unrelated to

41

u=15 m/s

30o

p1 p2

p3


22. On a horizontal level ground, the magnitude of the vertical component of initial velocity is ______________ and ____________to the vertical component of the vertical component of the impact velocity.A. greater, same direction B. less than, opposite direction C. equal to, opposite direction D. unrelated, different

23. A ball is thrown upward at an angle of 30 °; to the horizontal and lands on the top edge of a building that is 20 m away. The top edge is 5.0 m above the throwing point. How fast was the ball thrown?A. 11 m/s B. 20 m/s C. 16 m/s D. 5230 m/s

24. A hose lying on the ground shoots a stream of water upward at an angle of 40°; to the horizontal. The speed of the water is 20 m/s as it leaves the hose. How high up will it strike a wall which is 8.0 m away?A. 5.36 m B. 8.38 mC. 6.71 m D. 6.66 m

Suggestion to make this test truly measure misconception and problem solving skills

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation in this research !

42


Appendix A2: Optical Mark Sheet (OMS) Data Test Questions during Pilot Phase on P07 and

SPSS

S/N Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 ScoreANSWER

C A C A B B C C C B C C D A C B C B C A C C B A XXKEY

1 C A B C D A C C D B C C B A C B A B C B C C B A 162 A A B D C B A C C C C A D C A C C A C A A A B C 103 A A B C A B C C B C B B C A B C C A C A A A B C 94 C A B C A B C C C B C C D A C B A B C D C C B A 195 C A C C B B C C C C C C D A C B C B C B C C B C 206 A A B D C B D C D C C A D A A C C A C A A A C C 97 A A B C C D C C C B C C B A A B C C B A C D 118 C C C A B B C C A B C C B B A B C A C A C A B B 169 C A C C B B C A B C C C A A A D C D C A C B A A 14

10 C C C A B A C C C B C C D A C B C B C A C C B A 2211 C C C A B B C A A B C C B A D B C B C B C C 1612 C A C A B B C C A C C C C A D B C B C A C B B A 1913 C A C B B A C A C C C A A D B C B C A C B C A 1614 C A C A B B C C C B C C D A C B C C C A C C B A 2315 C A B C A B C A C C A A C C A C C B C A A C C B 1016 C A C A B B C C B C C A A C B C C C A C C B A 2117 C A C C B D C A B A B D C C C A C A C B C B C A 10

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q241 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 12 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -13 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -14 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -16 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -17 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -18 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -19 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1

10 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -112 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 113 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 114 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 115 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -116 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 117 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1

Filename: weelookang1.sav

43


Appendix A3: Alpha on Test Questions during Pilot Phase on P07

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 VAR00010 VAR00011 VAR00012 VAR00013 VAR00014 VAR00015 VAR00016 VAR00017 VAR00018 VAR00019 VAR00020 VAR00021 VAR00022 VAR00023 VAR00024 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL/MODEL=ALPHA.

Reliability

[DataSet0]

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

17 100.0

0 .0

17 100.0

Valid

Excludeda

Total

CasesN %

Listwise deletion based on allvariables in the procedure.

a.

Reliability Statistics

.813 24

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=VAR00001 VAR00002 VAR00003 VAR00004 VAR00005 VAR00006 VAR00007 VAR00008 VAR00009 VAR00010 VAR00011 VAR00012 VAR00013 VAR00014 VAR00015 VAR00016 VAR00017 VAR00018 VAR00019 VAR00020 VAR00021 VAR00022 VAR00023 VAR00024 /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL/MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=DESCRIPTIVE SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL .

Reliability

[DataSet0]

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

44


Case Processing Summary

17 100.0

0 .0

17 100.0

Valid

Excludeda

Total

CasesN %

Listwise deletion based on allvariables in the procedure.

a.

Reliability Statistics

.813 24

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Item Statistics

.5294 .87447 17

.6471 .78591 17

.1765 1.01460 17

-.2941 .98518 17

.1765 1.01460 17

.5294 .87447 17

.6471 .78591 17

.4118 .93934 17

-.0588 1.02899 17

-.0588 1.02899 17

.6471 .78591 17

.4118 .93934 17

-.2941 .98518 17

.5294 .87447 17

-.1765 1.01460 17

.2941 .98518 17

.7647 .66421 17

-.0588 1.02899 17

1.0000 .00000 17

.2941 .98518 17

.4118 .93934 17

-.0588 1.02899 17

.1765 1.01460 17

.0588 1.02899 17

VAR00001

VAR00002

VAR00003

VAR00004

VAR00005

VAR00006

VAR00007

VAR00008

VAR00009

VAR00010

VAR00011

VAR00012

VAR00013

VAR00014

VAR00015

VAR00016

VAR00017

VAR00018

VAR00019

VAR00020

VAR00021

VAR00022

VAR00023

VAR00024

Mean Std. Deviation N

45


Item-Total Statistics

6.1765 82.529 .609 .795

6.0588 97.559 -.335 .832

6.5294 82.265 .526 .798

7.0000 81.500 .590 .795

6.5294 82.265 .526 .798

6.1765 92.529 -.019 .822

6.0588 88.059 .291 .809

6.2941 90.971 .062 .820

6.7647 87.441 .232 .813

6.7647 83.441 .451 .802

6.0588 85.059 .503 .801

6.2941 79.471 .753 .787

7.0000 88.500 .189 .814

6.1765 86.029 .381 .805

6.8824 82.235 .527 .798

6.4118 78.882 .750 .786

5.9412 95.559 -.233 .826

6.7647 86.441 .286 .810

5.7059 92.971 .000 .815

6.4118 93.882 -.099 .828

6.2941 79.971 .721 .789

6.7647 81.941 .535 .797

6.5294 83.265 .469 .801

6.6471 83.118 .469 .801

VAR00001

VAR00002

VAR00003

VAR00004

VAR00005

VAR00006

VAR00007

VAR00008

VAR00009

VAR00010

VAR00011

VAR00012

VAR00013

VAR00014

VAR00015

VAR00016

VAR00017

VAR00018

VAR00019

VAR00020

VAR00021

VAR00022

VAR00023

VAR00024

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach'sAlpha if Item

Deleted

Scale Statistics

6.7059 92.971 9.64213 24Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

Filename: Output1.spo from weelookang1.sav

Reliability Statistics on Question 3 and 5 which test ay = -g

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based

on Standardized

Items N of Items

1.000 1.000 2


46


Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedVAR00003 .1765 1.029 1.000 . .(a)VAR00005 .1765 1.029 1.000 . .(a)

Reliability Statistics on Question 4, 11, 12 and 14 which test ux = vx

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based

on Standardized

Items N of Items

.756 .764 4


Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedVAR00004 1.5882 4.882 .372 .258 .804VAR00011 .6471 4.618 .662 .522 .650VAR00012 .8824 3.735 .786 .642 .555VAR00014 .7647 4.941 .454 .346 .750

47


Appendix B1: Pre and Post Test Questions

Name:_______________________ Class:________ Date:_____________

Misconceptions and Concept Test on Projectile motion (50 mins)

Note: Always assume air resistance is negligible in this test

1. Which of the following is an example of projectile motion?A. a jet lifting off the runway B. an bird flying in the airC. a bullet being fired from a gun D. a rocket flying off

2. A woman throws a projectile. A man claims he can throw the projectile always further than the woman. Is this man telling the truth? A. true B. falseC. I don’t know D. not enough information to determine

3. A basketball is thrown horizontally from a height of 3 m above the ground. At the same time, another basketball is released vertically down 3 m above the ground. Which basketball will strike the ground first?A. basketball thrown horizontally B. basketball released verticallyC. they will hit at the same time D. not enough information to determine

4. A boy on bicycle is traveling in a straight line at constant velocity all the time. He then projects a tennis ball vertically up. Where will the tennis ball land?A. on the boy B. in front of the boyC. behind the boy D. not enough information to determine

5. Faster horizontal motion causes an object to fall slowerA. true B. falseC. I don’t know D. not enough information to determine

6. An object of greater mass will fall at a greater rate (greater acceleration) than an object of lesser mass A. true B. falseC. I don’t know D. not enough information to determine

48


7. The range of a projectile isA the angle at which the projectile is fired B. the maximum height reachedC. the horizontal distance traveled D. the time of flight

8. When hit at 35 m/s at an angle of 300, a golf ball travels 50m. What other angle will result in the same horizontal distance?A. 450 B. 350

C. 600 D. 500

9. What angle results in the greatest horizontal distance traveled by a projectile on a horizontal level ground given that the initial launch velocity is constant?A. 150 B. 300

C. 450 D. 900

10. A projectile shooting machine tries to shoot an apple that drops from rest vertically down from a tree. Given that when the apple is dropped and at the same instant the projectile is fired, where should the machine aim in order to hit the apple?

A. above the apple B. at the appleC. below the apple D. not enough information to determine

11. The initial horizontal component velocity of a projectile is ______ its final horizontal component velocityA. greater than B. less than C. equal to D. unrelated to

12. After the golf ball has attained a certain horizontal velocity after been hit by a golf club, the horizontal component velocity of the golf ball after leaving contact with the golf club is __________________to its final horizontal component velocityA. greater than B. less than C. equal to D. unrelated to

49


13. The figure below shows the long jumper just after jumping off at position A and just before landing at position D (assume the flight of a long jumper to be approximately projectile motion). Which position best depict a position of greatest vertical velocity?

14. The long jumper leaves the ground with an initial velocity of 4.4 m/s at an angle of 37o with the horizontal. What is the magnitude of horizontal component of the initial velocity? (cos 37o = 0.797 , sin 37 o = 0.602, tan 37 o =0.753 )A. 3.5 m/s B. 4.4 m/s C. 2.6 m/s D. 3.3 m/s

15. What is the long jumper’s acceleration at position D ?A. zero m/s2 B. 4.4 m/s2 downwardsC. 9.81 m/s2 downwards D. 3.5 m/s2 downwards

16. A projectile is launched at an angle from the level ground.

Which of the following is true of how the speeds of the ball at the three points compare?A. vp1>vp2>vp3 B. vp3>vp2>vp1

C. vp3>vp1>vp2 D. vp3=vp2=vp1

17. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is NOT constant throughout the flight of the projectile?A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity C. horizontal acceleration D. vertical acceleration

50

A. B. C. D.

just after jumping

just before landing

u=15 m/s

30o

p1 p2

p3


18. In a projectile motion, the _____________ is zero throughout the flight of the projectile?A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity C. horizontal acceleration D. vertical acceleration

19. In a projectile motion, the _____________ changes direction during the flight of the projectile?A. horizontal velocity B. vertical velocity C. horizontal acceleration D. vertical acceleration

20. The magnitude of the vertical component velocity of the projectile at the highest point of the motion is always zero.A. true B. falseC. not sure D. not enough information to determine

21. On a horizontal level ground, the angle of impact on the ground of the projectile is _________ the angle of projection of the projectile. A. greater than B. less than C. equal to D. unrelated to

22. On a horizontal level ground, the magnitude of the vertical component of initial velocity is ______________ and ____________to the vertical component of the impact velocity.A. greater, same direction B. less than, opposite direction C. equal to, opposite direction D. unrelated , different

23. A ball is thrown upward at an angle of 30 ° to the horizontal and lands on the top edge of a building that is 20 m away. The top edge is 5.0 m above the throwing point. How fast was the ball thrown?A. 11 m/s B. 20 m/s C. 16 m/s D. 30 m/s E. don’t know

24. A hose lying on the ground shoots a stream of water upward at an angle of 40° to the horizontal. The speed of the water is 20 m/s as it leaves the hose. How high up will it strike a wall which is 8.0 m away?A. 5.38 m B. 8.38 mC. 6.71 m D. 6.66 m E. don’t know

Thank you for your participation in this research!

51


Appendix B1.2: Processed Data Pre and Post Test Questions

Pre23 Post23 Gain23 TREATMENT TEACHER CTG SEX Name

8 12 4 CLASSROOM GOH P12 tan jing hang ben

13 15 2 CLASSROOM GOH P12 F CHUA ZHEN LING

11 16 5 CLASSROOM GOH P12 F SEAH SHAOLI TERI

13 18 5 CLASSROOM GOH P12 F WANG JINGYI

12 12 0 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M CHEW YUHE BENNY

12 17 5 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M DANIEL AGUSTINUS JAUWHAN

3 13 10 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M ENG ZHEN YANG ANTHONY

15 17 2 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M LAI CHIN HONG

13 17 4 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M LAU WEI RUI

11 17 6 CLASSROOM GOH P12 M TAN HONG YI

17 18 1 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F CHOO AMELENE

16 18 2 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F IRYANI BTE AMARAN

14 18 4 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F LEE YUEN YUN SAMANTHA

10 14 4 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F QIU XINHUI KELLY

7 14 7 CLASSROOM LIM P03 F WENDELINE ONG

15 19 4 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M CHENG JIN DONG LUKE

15 15 0 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M CHIU WAI LEONG

11 10 -1 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M FOO ZHISHENG ALVIN

21 16 -5 CLASSROOM LIM P03 M GAN WEILIANG

15 15 0 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F ANITA D/O SELVAM

9 15 6 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F CHAN JIAMIN CARMEN

8 14 6 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F HAIRUNNISHA BTE NOORDIN

18 18 0 CLASSROOM WEE P07 F TAN KIAH WEE

16 19 3 CLASSROOM WEE P07 M HSU THAR

15 21 6 CLASSROOM WEE P07 M NEO HAK YONG

9 19 10 CLASSROOM WEE P07 M TEO SHUI YUAN

10 17 7 COMPUTER GOH P01 F CHRIS NG QI WEN

16 20 4 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LAU HUI PING

17 14 -3 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LI JIEMIN

6 18 12 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LIM HUI YIN

15 15 0 COMPUTER GOH P01 F LONG JIHUI

13 15 2 COMPUTER GOH P01 F MARIA ALVINA WIJAYA

18 18 0 COMPUTER GOH P01 F SU YANJIE

19 21 2 COMPUTER GOH P01 M CHOO WEI LIANG LIONEL

14 22 8 COMPUTER GOH P01 M HAN HAOGUANG

15 18 3 COMPUTER GOH P01 M LAU KIA YONG

9 16 7 COMPUTER GOH P01 M PHUA TOOL ANN

18 19 1 COMPUTER GOH P01 M SEE SOO TECK

20 19 -1 COMPUTER GOH P01 M TAN CHUN SIANG

19 20 1 COMPUTER GOH P01 M TAN LII KIN JONATHAN

52


9 15 6 COMPUTER GOH P01 M TAN YOK YONG

13 17 4 COMPUTER GOH P01 M YAP WEI JIE

17 19 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 F ANG ZI YA

13 11 -2 COMPUTER LIM P13 F CUMMINGS JULIE CHUA

9 11 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 F TONG HONG LI

11 12 1 COMPUTER LIM P13 F VICTORIA LOH YUAN YIN

11 17 6 COMPUTER LIM P13 M ANG WEN FANG

11 14 3 COMPUTER LIM P13 M AW JI HOE

8 13 5 COMPUTER LIM P13 M HUANG GUANLONG JETHRO

14 16 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 M HUANG LEKANG EUGENE

20 22 2 COMPUTER LIM P13 M LAM YONG SAN

7 17 10 COMPUTER WEE P05 F CHEN SHUCHAN

9 22 13 COMPUTER WEE P05 F CHIA PEI YING

4 16 12 COMPUTER WEE P05 F FOO HUI CHENG

10 18 8 COMPUTER WEE P05 F KOH YU PEI

10 12 2 COMPUTER WEE P05 F LYN YIN SIANG JOANNE

16 18 2 COMPUTER WEE P05 F MICHELLE CHEW MEI XIAN

10 18 8 COMPUTER WEE P05 F SEAH XINRUI DAPHNE

13 18 5 COMPUTER WEE P05 F WONG SER YING

6 10 4 COMPUTER WEE P05 F YAP CHOU YENG JUNE

9 17 8 COMPUTER WEE P05 M ARVIN S/O RAJENDRAM

15 18 3 COMPUTER WEE P05 M LIM JING DA

9 20 11 COMPUTER WEE P05 M NG WEI MING

12 21 9 COMPUTER WEE P05 M YAN SHI

53


Appendix B2: Pre and Post Test results of 23 questions of Control and Experimental Group

Group Statistics

VAR00003 N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

MeanVAR00001 .00 26 12.5769 3.90049 .76495

1.00 38 12.5000 4.22189 .68488VAR00002 .00 26 16.0385 2.59970 .50984

1.00 38 16.9474 3.17888 .51568

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t dfSig. (2-tailed)

Mean Differenc

eStd. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower UpperVAR00001 Equal variances

assumed .705 .404 .074 62 .941 .07692 1.04232 -2.006642.1604

9 Equal variances

not assumed .075 56.580 .941 .07692 1.02675 -1.979432.1332

8

VAR00002 Equal variances assumed .693 .408 -1.207 62 .232 -.90891 .75311 -2.41435 .59654

Equal variances not assumed -1.253 59.934 .215 -.90891 .72517 -2.35949 .54168

Subjects Mean Standard Deviation

Treatment Condition 38 12.5 4.22189

Comparison Condition 26 12.58 3.90049

Pre test Cohen's d

0.02 negligible effect



Comparison Condition 26 16.0385 3.17888 Post test Cohen's d 0.32 small effect

54

E-learning in Physics 55


Appendix B2.1: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Researcher Wee Group

Group Statistics


MeanVAR00001Pre test

.00 classroom

7 12.8571 4.05909 1.53419

1.00 computer

13 10.0000 3.39116 .94054

VAR00002Post test

.00 classroom

7 17.2857 2.62769 .99317

1.00 computer

13 17.3077 3.27579 .90854


Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means


Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference


Difference

Upper LowerVAR00001Pre test

Equal variances assumed 1.544 .230 1.680 18 .110 2.85714 1.70060

-.71568

6.42996

Equal variances not assumed 1.588 10.608 .142 2.85714 1.79954

-1.1215

4

6.83583

VAR00002post test

Equal variances assumed .000 .993 -.015 18 .988 -.02198 1.44157

-3.0506

0

3.00664

Equal variances not assumed -.016 14.994 .987 -.02198 1.34605

-2.8911

1

2.84715


Treatment Condition 13 10 3.39116

Comparison Condition 7 12.8571 4.05909Pre test Cohen's d 0.83 large effect



Comparison Condition 7 17.2857 2.62769Post test Cohen's d 0.01 negligible effect

56


Appendix B2.2: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Instructor Lim Group

Pre Test Group Statistics



.00 classroom

9 14.0000 4.15331 1.38444

1.00 computer

9 12.6667 3.84057 1.28019

VAR00002Post test

.00 classroom

9 15.7778 2.86259 .95420

1.00 computer

9 15.0000 3.80789 1.26930

Pre Test Independent Samples Test




Mean Difference



Difference


Equal variances assumed .018 .896 .707 16 .490 1.33333 1.88562

-2.66400

5.33067

Equal variances not assumed .707 15.903 .490 1.33333 1.88562

-2.66598

5.33265

VAR00003Post test

Equal variances assumed 1.097 .310 .490 16 .631 .77778 1.58796

-2.58854

4.14409

Equal variances not assumed .490 14.853 .631 .77778 1.58796

-2.60978

4.16534



Comparison Condition 9 14 3.84057 Pre test Cohen's d 0.35 small effect


Treatment Condition 9 15 2.86259

Comparison Condition 9 15.7778 3.80789 Post Test Cohen's d 0.24 small effect

57


Appendix B2.3: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Instructor Goh Group

Group Statistics



.00 classroom

10 11.1000 3.38132 1.06927

1.00 computer

16 14.4375 4.17882 1.04470

VAR00002Post test

.00 classroom

10 15.4000 2.27058 .71802

1.00 computer

16 17.7500 2.35230 .58808





Mean Difference



Difference


Equal variances assumed

1.384 .251 -2.123 24 .044 -3.33750 1.57170 -6.58134-.0936

6

Equal variances not assumed

-2.233 22.230 .036 -3.33750 1.49490 -6.43589-.2391

1

VAR00002post test

Equal variances assumed

.001 .978 -2.511 24 .019 -2.35000 .93603 -4.28186-.4181

4


-2.532 19.783 .020 -2.35000 .92811 -4.28737-.4126

3



Comparison Condition 10 11.1 3.38132 Pre test Cohen's d 0.89 large effect



Comparison Condition 10 15.4 2.27058 Post test Cohen's d 1.05 large effect

58


Appendix B2.4: Pre and Post-Test results of 23 questions of Instructor Goh and Wee Group

Group Statistics


MeanVAR00001 .00 17 11.8235 3.66120 .88797

1.00 29 12.4483 4.39632 .81638VAR00002 .00 17 16.1765 2.53069 .61378

1.00 29 17.5517 2.75922 .51237


Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means


Mean Difference



Difference

Upper LowerVAR00001 Equal

variances assumed

1.955 .169 -.494 44 .624 -.62475 1.26587-

3.17593

1.92644


-.518 38.685 .607 -.62475 1.20622-

3.06519

1.81570

VAR00002 Equal variances assumed

.000 .991 -1.681 44 .100 -1.37525 .81814-

3.02410

.27360


-1.720 36.062 .094 -1.37525 .79954-

2.99669

.24618



Comparison Condition 17 11.8235 4.39632Pre test Cohen's d 0.16 small effect



Comparison Condition 17 16.1765 2.53069Post test Cohen's d 0.52 medium effect

59


Appendix B3: Table of Control and Experimental (Target without repeat JC1 ) Grouping

Count of students TREATMENT TEACHER

CLASSROOM CLASSROOM Total COMPUTER COMPUTER Total Grand TotalCTG GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEEP01 16 16 16P03 9 9 9P05 13 13 13P07 7 7 7P12 10 10 10P13 9 9 9

Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

60


Appendix B4: Chart of Pre Test score versus Post Test score of Control(Classroom) and

Experimental(Computer) of 82 students

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

CLASSROOM

COMPUTER

CLASSROOM 13.0 15.0 14.0 16.7 17.0 14.5 15.0 17.8 18.0 17.9 19.0 19.0 19.3 17.0 18.5 21.0 24.0

COMPUTER 17.0 11.0 19.0 18.0 14.5 16.8 18.5 15.4 22.0 17.6 17.5 18.8 19.0 17.5 19.5 19.8 23.0 21.0

3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Drop Page Fields Here

Average of POSTTESTScore

PRETESTScore

TREATMENT

61


Appendix B4.1: Chart of Pre Test score versus Post Test score of Control(Classroom) and

Experimental(Computer) of 64 students

62


Appendix B5: Chart of Average Post Test score of Control (Classroom) and Experimental

(Computer) by Instructor Grouping of 82 students

63


Appendix B5.1: Chart of Average Post Test score of Control (Classroom) and Experimental

(Computer) by Instructor Grouping of 64 students

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

3 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 16 18

GOH LIM WEE

CLASSROOM

COMPUTER

Average of Gain23

TEACHER Pre23

TREATMENT

64


Appendix C1: Test of Projectile Motion-Physics Related Attitudes (TOPRA)

For each of the following statements below, kindly indicate on your Optical Mark Sheet (OMS) from Question 41 to 47 your response based on your feeling about the statement. There are no correct answers.

A B C D

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

41. I enjoy physics

42. Physics is one of my most interesting subjects

43. I look forward to physics lessons.

44. Studying physics is a waste of time

45. The work is hard in physics lessons.

46. I feel confused during physics lessons.

47. The thought of physics makes me tense.

65


Appendix C2: Affective Outcome Scale (AOS)

For each of the following statements below, kindly indicate on your Optical Mark Sheet (OMS) from Question 48 to 59 your response based on a four-point scale, with anchor points “Not At All” to Very Much So”.

These Projectile Motion lessons have:

A B C D

Not At All

A little Quite a bit Very Much So

48. Helped me better understand physics principles.

49. Made me more confident in my knowledge of physics.

50. Helped me to remember key ideas by applying them.

51. Made physics concepts less difficult to grasp

52. Made physics more physics.53. Increased my interest in the

subject54. Made me want to know more

about physics.55. Increased my motivation to do

the assigned work in physics.56. Highlighted to me that physics

is an important subject area.57. Shown me how physics can

be applied to solve important problems

58. Shown me that physics has important connections with other subject areas.

59. Reminded me that physics can be used to solve real-world problems

Thank you for your participation in this research!

66


Appendix C3: For 64 students (Target students only)

A B C D

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

I enjoy physicsCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER

CLASSROOMCLASSROOM Total COMPUTER

COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q41 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 1 1 2B 1 1 3 3 4C 4 6 4 14 8 8 11 27 41D 6 2 2 10 5 1 1 7 17Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

92% 89%

Physics is one of my most interesting subjectsCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q42 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 2 2 3B 1 1 2 3 1 2 6 8C 7 6 3 16 6 7 10 23 39D 3 2 2 7 5 1 1 7 14Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

88% 83%

I look forward to physics lessons.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q43 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE * 1 1 1A 1 1 1B 1 4 1 6 6 1 3 10 16C 7 4 3 14 7 8 8 23 37D 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 9Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

67


77% 68%

Studying physics is a waste of timeCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q44 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 6 3 6 15 4 4 4 12 27B 4 6 1 11 10 5 9 24 35C 1 1 1D 1 1 1Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

0% 5%

The work is hard in physics lessons.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q45 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE * 1 1 1A 1 1 2 2B 3 5 3 11 4 2 8 14 25C 6 3 2 11 12 5 5 22 33D 1 1 2 2 3Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

48% 63%

I feel confused during physics lessons.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q46 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 2 1 3 1 1 2 5B 6 6 3 15 9 4 5 18 33C 1 2 2 5 6 4 7 17 22D 1 1 1 3 1 1 4Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

31% 47%

The thought of physics makes me tense.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q47 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 4 1 3 8 2 1 3 11B 6 7 4 17 7 6 9 22 39C 1 1 6 2 4 12 13D 1 1 1

68


Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 644% 34%

Helped me better understand physics principles.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q48 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE B 2 2 1 5 6 2 3 11 16C 6 5 4 15 7 5 6 18 33D 2 2 2 6 3 2 4 9 15Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

81% 71%

Made me more confident in my knowledge of physics.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q49 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 2 2B 2 5 1 8 6 4 6 16 24C 6 4 2 12 7 5 3 15 27D 2 4 6 2 3 5 11Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

69% 53%

Helped me to remember key ideas by applying themCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q50 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 1 1 2B 1 3 1 5 6 4 2 12 17C 8 4 2 14 6 4 9 19 33D 1 1 4 6 3 1 2 6 12Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

77% 66%

Made physics concepts less difficult to graspCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q51 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE 1 1 1A 2 2 2

69


B 2 4 2 8 7 1 3 11 19C 6 5 2 13 7 5 10 22 35D 2 3 5 2 2 7Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

69% 63%

Made physics more physics.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q52 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 1 1 2 3B 4 2 1 7 7 2 2 11 18C 4 4 1 9 7 6 9 22 31D 2 2 4 8 2 1 3 11E 1 1 1Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

65% 66%

Increased my interest in the subjectCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q53 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 2 1 1 3B 3 1 1 5 6 4 5 15 20C 5 6 1 12 6 5 7 18 30D 2 1 4 7 3 1 4 11Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

73% 58%

Made me want to know more about physics.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q54 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 2 3 3 5B 1 3 1 5 4 3 6 13 18C 7 4 3 14 7 6 5 18 32D 1 1 3 5 2 2 4 9Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

73% 58%

Increased my motivation to do the assigned work in physics.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q55 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE

70


A 1 1 3 1 4 5B 1 4 2 7 5 6 4 15 22C 7 2 1 10 6 3 8 17 27D 2 2 4 8 2 2 10Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

69% 50%

Highlighted to me that physics is an important subject areaCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q56 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 2 1 1 4 4B 1 3 1 5 7 1 3 11 16C 7 4 1 12 5 7 8 20 32D 2 2 5 9 2 1 3 12Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

81% 61%

Shown me how physics can be applied to solve important problemsCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q57 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 1B 1 2 1 4 7 4 3 14 18C 7 6 13 6 5 7 18 31D 2 1 6 9 3 2 5 14Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

85% 61%

Shown me that physics has important connections with other subject areas.Count of Name TREATMENT TEACHER


COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q58 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 1B 1 4 1 6 9 3 4 16 22C 5 4 9 5 5 7 17 26D 4 1 6 11 2 2 4 15Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

77% 55%

Reminded me that physics can be used to solve real-world problemsCount of Name TREATMENT TEACHER

71



COMPUTER Total

Grand Total

Q59 GOH LIM WEE GOH LIM WEE A 1 1 1 1 2 3B 1 3 1 5 6 1 1 8 13C 6 3 1 10 4 6 8 18 28D 3 2 5 10 5 2 3 10 20Grand Total 10 9 7 26 16 9 13 38 64

77% 78%

72


References

73

Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program on Addressing...

Documents

Transcript of Effectiveness of Computer Laboratory Based E-Learning Instructional Program on Addressing...